HOME DEPARTMENT

Firearms

Caroline Flint: Following the Home Secretary's decision not to extend further the life of the Firearms Consultative Committee, we have been considering how best to establish a forum for consultation and to assist in the current review of legislation. We have decided to establish a broad-based Firearms Advisory Committee with around 21 members to be drawn in equal measure from shooting interests; law enforcement/regulation; and organisations and community groups with an interest in the social consequences of firearms use and misuse.
	The committee's terms of reference will be:
	To advise the Home Secretary on the law and policy on firearms, having regard to the need to maintain public safety and prevent criminal misuse and taking into account the interests of legitimate shooters and the efficient, effective administration of controls.
	It will be assisted in this task by a technical sub-committee with 12 to 15 members drawn principally from representatives of law enforcement bodies and shooting organisations with knowledge and experience of firearms matters. The sub-committee's terms of reference will be:
	To consider the technical and legal aspects of administering and enforcing firearms controls and to make recommendations to the Firearms Advisory Committee on these and such other matters as may be referred to them.
	We will be approaching interested organisations and individuals to seek nominations to serve on one, or both, committees with a view to appointing members as soon as possible.
	The committee will be asked to submit a report of its work after 12 months and copies will be placed in the Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Disability Discrimination Act

Maria Eagle: I have today laid before both Houses, in draft, two codes of practice concerning the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) relating to employment and associated matters. The codes have been prepared by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) under section 53A of the DDA.
	The issue of the new codes is necessitated by changes to the legislation by virtue of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Pensions) Regulations 2003, which transpose requirements of European Council Directive 2000/78/EC concerning disability discrimination, and come into force on 1 October this year.
	The draft code on employment and occupation covers the provisions of the DDA (as amended) relating to disabled employees, contract workers, police officers, partners in firms, barristers and advocates and persons undertaking practical work experience. The other draft code concerns the duties, under the amended Act, of Trade Organisations and Qualifications Bodies.
	The new codes will replace the existing ones issued by the Secretary of State in 1996 and 1999, which deal only with employment and trade organisations, respectively. The codes are issued by the DRC, subject to approval by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and after laying them in draft before Parliament for 40 sitting days. The codes are intended to give practical guidance to those to whom the relevant provisions of the DDA apply.
	Section 53A of the DDA provides that failure to observe any provision of a code of practice does not of itself make a person liable to any proceedings, but that any provision of a code which appears to a court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in any proceedings under the Act shall be taken into account in determining that question.
	The draft codes have undergone public consultation, and a report of the process has been published by the DRC on its website.
	The changes to the legislation from October will bring significant improvements in the rights of disabled people in employment and in vocational training. In particular, they will extend the employment provisions of the DDA to one million additional employers and seven million further jobs, including 600,000 in which disabled workers are already employed, Employers and others with new duties from 1 October have no need to be apprehensive about these new duties, as they will not be required to make unreasonable changes. The new codes of practice will help them to decide what is reasonable in particular circumstances.
	The Commission will be publishing the codes in advance of the legislative changes coming into force, so that those with new duties under the DDA can consider what reasonable adjustments they may need to make.
	The intended commencement date is 1 October 2004, to coincide with the date on which the changes to the legislation come into force.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Right to Buy (Homes for the Elderly)

Keith Hill: The Government has today issued a consultation paper seeking the views of social landlords and tenant groups on its proposals to update guidance issued in 1993 on the exception from the right to buy scheme of homes that are particularly suitable for occupation by elderly persons.
	From the inception of the right to buy in 1980, certain kinds of property have been excepted from the scheme. These are listed in paragraph 11 of schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985. One of these exceptions is that a landlord may deny a tenant the right to buy if his home is particularly suitable for occupation by elderly persons, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features paragraph 11 also provides that a tenant denied the right to buy on these grounds may appeal to the Secretary of State. A joint Department of the Environment and Welsh Office circular, issued in 1993, provides guidance on the main points on which the Secretary of State will normally expect to be satisfied when determining such appeals.
	The Government's Housing Bill proposes that such appeals by tenants living in England should, in future, be determined by a residential property tribunal rather than by the Secretary of State. This will provide administrative benefits but will make no substantive difference to landlords or to tenants who appeal under paragraph 11. Such appeals in Wales will continue to be determined by the National Assembly for Wales. The Government do not propose to change the terms of the exception in paragraph 11 in any way.
	In support of this transfer of jurisdiction, the Government proposes to review and update the guidance in the 1993 circular. Clearer guidance will benefit both tenants and landlords by reducing ambiguities that have led to unnecessary work, disagreements, and disappointment. Among other things, the Government proposes that landlords should explain the effect of the paragraph 11 exclusion to their tenants, and that elderly tenants who are being rehoused should be advised if in their landlords' view the right to buy would be unlikely to apply to the properties that they are being offered.
	The responses to the consultation paper will be taken into account in preparing the revised guidance. It is intended that the new circular will be issued by the end of 2004.

HEALTH

Bureaucracy

John Reid: On 30 October, I announced to the Health Committee that the Department would be conducting a review of its arm's length bodies (ALBs). The first stage of this has now been completed. I wanted to update the House on the decisions that I have taken and how the review will move forward to the next stage.
	In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked on the importance the Government attach to improving public sector efficiency and reducing bureaucracy. In the Budget report, he set out that "the pursuit of efficiency also includes reducing bureaucracy, that both cuts headquarters' administration costs and frees up time of front line professionals to respond better to the needs of their customers". The Department's ALB review needs to be seen in this context and related to the work of Sir   Peter Gershon in reviewing public sector efficiency. It is about putting the frontline first, and it is clear from the first stage of the ALB review that, although much good work continues to be done by ALBs, there is considerable scope for improving efficiency and reducing bureaucracy.
	The review covers bodies undertaking national functions sponsored by the Department that were in existence or in the pipeline in 2003–04. The 42 ALBs included in the review are listed below. In a full year, ALBs spend more than £2.5 billion and employ more than 22,000 staff. If left unchanged, they would employ about 10 times the number of staff of the Department itself after completion of its change programme. It is clear from the analysis we have done during the first stage of the review that:
	there are overlapping and duplicated functions;
	there is scope for reducing unnecessary regulatory and policy activities;
	back-office functions such as human resources, finance, information technology and estates could be carried out more effectively;
	a considerable number of bodies could be merged, thereby reducing overheads and integrating like functions;
	some bodies could be moved to a more independent status with greater stakeholder control; and
	there is scope for significant efficiency and productivity gains particularly in the area of services acquired centrally for the National Health Service .
	The ALB sector has grown over several decades and, as currently constituted, does not best meet the health and social care needs of today and tomorrow. I have therefore asked my Department to take forward with the sector a reform agenda that delivers the following objectives:
	maximum devolution of responsibility to front line NHS and social care;
	improved efficiency across the sector with minimal bureaucratic overhead;
	closer working across the boundaries between health and social care; and
	minimised burden of inspection and regulation on health and social care services without reduced effectiveness.
	These objectives are aimed at putting the frontline first and improving services for the public while ensuring value for public money.
	In light of preliminary findings of the first stage, I have set the parameters for the next stage of this review. These are, against a baseline year of 2003–4:
	a 50 per cent., reduction in the number of ALBs;
	a saving in expenditure by ALBs of £0.5 billion by 2007–08; and
	a reduction in posts of 25 per cent., in the same period.
	Changes on this scale will enable considerable extra resources to be redeployed to the frontline. For example another £0.5 billion would provide for four new hospitals, or 20,000 more nurses, or 6,250 consultants, or 7,500 general practitioners.
	I recognise that the changes in prospect will cause uncertainty and disruption but they are needed. I intend for the next stage of the review to be completed as quickly as possible, within my parameters, and taking into account the need for proper discussion with the ALBs concerned and the devolved administrations. The Department will be in touch with ALB chairs and chief executives shortly to discuss our ideas for change. We want to work with them on the detail of our proposals over the next two months. We are hoping to complete this next stage by the end of June so that decisions can be announced before the summer recess.
	List of ALBs considered in the reviewALBs in 2003–04
	1.   ¡ CHI—Commission for Health Improvement
	2.   CPPIH—Commission for Patient & Public   Involvement in Health
	3.   CRHP—Council for the Regulation of Health Care   Professionals
	4.   ¡ DPB—Dental Practice Board
	5.   DVTA—Dental Vocational Training Authority
	6.   FHSAA—Family Health Services Appeals   Authority
	7.   GSCC—General Social Care Council
	8.   HDA—Health Development Agency
	9.   HFEA—Human Fertilisation & Embryology   Authority
	10.   HPA—Health Protection Agency
	11.   ¡ MHAC—Mental Health Act Commission
	12.   MHRA—Medicines & Health Care Products   Regulatory Authority
	13.   NBA—National Blood Authority
	14.   NBSB—National Biological Standards Board
	15.   ¡ NCSC—National Care Standards Commission
	16.   NCAA—National Clinical Assessment Authority
	17.   NHS AC—NHS Appointments Commission
	18.   NHS CFSMS—NHS Counter Fraud & Security   Management Service
	19.   NHS Direct
	20.   NHS Estates
	21.   NHS IA—NHS Information Authority
	22.   NHS LA—NHS Litigation Authority
	23.   NHS Logistics Authority
	24.   NHS Modernisation Agency
	25.   NHS PASA—NHS Purchasing & Supplies   Authority
	26.   NHS PA—NHS Pensions Agency
	27.   NHS Professionals
	28.   NHSU
	29.   NICE—National Institute for Clinical Excellence
	30.   NPSA—National Patients Safety Agency
	31.   ¡ NRPB—National Radiological Protection Board
	32.   NTA—National Treatment Agency for Substance   Misuse
	33.   OIR—Office of the Independent Regulator of NHS   Foundation Trusts
	34.   ¡ PHLS—Public Health Laboratory Service
	35.   PMETB—Postgraduate Medical Education &   Training Board
	36.   PPA—Prescriptions Pricing Authority
	37.   ¡ ROC—Retained Organs Commission
	38.   UKT-UK Transplant
	¡ These separate organisations have now gone or are   planned to go.
	Others covered by the review
	These are now operational:
	39.   CHAI—Commission for Health Care Audit &   Inspection
	40.   CSCI—Commission for Social Care Inspection
	These are planned but not yet operational:
	41.   Dental Special Health Authority
	42.   HTA—Human Tissue Authority

CABINET OFFICE

Regulatory Impact Assessments

Douglas Alexander: The Government is committed to ensuring that regulations are necessary, give effective protection, balance cost and risk, are fair and command public confidence. In accordance with this, we require Departments to produce and publish regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) for all regulatory proposals likely to have an impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.
	I have today presented to Parliament a Command Paper listing RIAs published between 1 July and 31 December 2003. Copies of those RIAs listed are available in the Library. This is the twentieth such Command Paper.

Correspondence

Douglas Alexander: I am today publishing a report on Departments' and Agencies' performance on handling Members' and Peers' correspondence for 2003. Details are shown in the table. Departmental figures are based on substantive replies unless otherwise indicated.
	The footnotes on the table provide general background information on how the figures have been compiled.
	
		Correspondence from MPs/Peers to Ministers and agency chief executives(1)
		
			  2002  2003 
			 Department or Agency Target setfor reply(workingdays) Numberof lettersreceived % of replies within target Target setfor reply(workingdays) Numberof lettersreceived % of replieswithin target 
		
		
			 Cabinet Office 15 475 73 15 443 90 
			 Department for Constitutional Affairs(2) 20 2,577 54 20 2,746 49 
			   Court Service 20 230 84 15 464 95 
			  15* 593 78 — — — 
			   HM Land Registry 20 32 100 20 48 96 
			   National Archives(3) 15 166 98 15 30 90 
			  10** 61 98 10** 34 100 
			   Public Guardianship Office 15 261 31 15 95 88 
			 *  Target for correspondence sent direct to Agency Chief Executive. 
			 **   Target for correspondence sent direct to Agency Chief Executive. 
			 Crown Prosecution Service 15 366 85 15 298 88 
			 Department for Culture, Media and Sport 18 4,767 83 18 5,460 85 
			 HM Customs and Excise(4) 18 1,616 59 18 2,040 62 
			 Ministry of Defence(4) 15 5,381 83 15 5,565 76 
			   Armed Forces Personnel 15 18 100 15 93 98 
			   Administration Agency Army Personnel Centre — — — 15 16 94 
			   Defence Aviation Repair Agency 10 14 100 — — — 
			   Defence Estates — — — 15 24 88 
			   Defence Housing Executive — — — 15 14 79 
			   Met Office 15 14 100 — — — 
			   UK Hydrographic Office — — — 15 14 100 
			   Veterans Agency 15 265 99 15 251 94 
			 Department for Education and Skills(4) 15 15,595 84 15 14,424 92 
			 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 15 11,241 47 15 10,410 68 
			 Food Standards Agency(5) — — — 20 981 13 
			 Foreign and Commonwealth Office 20 15,535 83 20 30,168 80 
			   UK Visas(6) 15 10,322 98 15 16,964 86 
			 Department of Health(7) 20 17,942 29 20 19,029 54 
			   NHS Pensions Agency 15 65 95 10 63 84 
			   Medicines Control Agency 15 36 89 — — — 
			   Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory 
			   Agency — — — 10 26 85 
			 Home Office(8) 
			 *   Non Prison Service correspondence**   Prison Service correspondence 1520 26,0531,267*** 35 15(20 daysfor IND) 37,153 58 
			 Criminal Records Bureau(9) 5 632 N/A 10 461 92 
			 HM Prison Service 20 942 77 20 1,437 65 
			 UK Passport Service 10 132 97 10 337 79 
			 Inland Revenue4, 10 18 3,157 71 18 2,803 81 
			 *  Local Tax Office delegated figures (where local tax offices have replied to direct to MPs) 18 439* 80 18 1,795* 35 
			   Valuation Office(4) 18 20 75 18 13 77 
			 Department for International Development 15 2,612 96 15 3,676 88 
			 Lord President of the Council and Leader of the   House of Lord's Office 15 155 96 15 43 88 
			 Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers 15 378 63 15 325 65 
			 Northern Ireland Office 10 501 59 10 503 69 
			   Northern Ireland Prison Service 10 33 91 10 44 68 
			 National Savings and Investments(4) 15 44 66 15 24 70 
			 National Statistics(4) 20 212 82 15 193 84 
			 *  Letters where National Statistician replied on Minister's behalf10 104* 84 
			 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 15 5,523 76 15 8,737 73 
			   Planning Inspectorate 8 291 90 8 384 89 
			 Office of the Leader of the House of Commons 15 488 95 15 385 96 
			 Scotland Office 15 115 73 15 73 87 
			 Department for Trade and Industry(1) 10 11,565 41 15 14,678 58 
			   Companies House* 10 45 100 10 33 100 
			   Employment Tribunals Service** 6 46 93 — — — 
			   Insolvency Service 10 398 96 10 34 88 
			   Patent Office 10 367 98 10 484 98 
			   Radiocommunication Agency(1) 10 44 89 — — — 
			   Small Business Service*** — — — — — — 
			 * Letters sent direct to Agency Chief Executive. 
			 **  Target date for letters sent direct to Agency =15 working days. 
			 ***   Figures included in main DTI return. 
			 Department of Transport, Local Government and   the Regions 15 7,671 83 — — — 
			 Department for Transport 15 6,505 84 15 10,196 88 
			   Driving Standards Agency 15 56 98 15 108 90 
			   DVLA 10 729 99 7 1,028 99 
			   Highways Agency 15 273 96 15 263 85 
			   Maritime and Coastguard Agency 15 27 100 10 33 97 
			   Vehicle Inspectorate 15 27 100 — — — 
			   Vehicle and Operator Services Agency — — — 15 25 92 
			 HM Treasury(4) 15 4,647 78 15 4,036 83 
			 Treasury Solicitor's Department 10 26 100 10 34 100 
			 Wales Office 15 118 97 15 120 82 
			 Department for Work and Pensions 20 14,297 65 20 12,157 74 
			   Appeals Service 15 52 88 15 84 88 
			   Benefits Agency 20 504 87 — — — 
			   Child Support Agency 20 3,194 51 20 3,521 87 
			   Employment Service 15 72 95 — — — 
			   Jobcentre Plus 15 1,103 57 15 1,052 69 
			   The Pension Service 15 511 71 15 1,157 50 
			   Disability and Carers Service 15 749 100 15 554 99 
			   Debt Management 15 30 86 15 31 85 
			   Child Benefit Centre(1) 20 20 95 20 11 91 
			   Health and Safety Executive — — — 10 195 91 
		
	
	(1)   Departments and Agencies which received 10 MPs/Peers letters or less during 2003 are not shown in this table. Holding or interim replies are not included unless otherwise indicated.
	(2) 2DCA is currently undertaking changes to its processes for handling correspondence. In the short term these have lead to delays in response time, but in the longer term will improve the quality of responses. These changes include quality control of all responses, and revising the DCA correspondence monitoring system.
	(3) 3Formerly the Public Record Office.
	(4) 4Includes all Ministerial correspondence.
	(5) 5The statistics for the FSA are dominated by a single lobbying campaign which accounted for almost 70% of its total annual correspondence. The Agency is reviewing its procedures for handling peaks of work arising from such a campaign. Majority of replies are signed by Health Ministers.
	(6) 62003 figures also include a small number of letters from members of the public.
	(7) 7Department of Health improved its performance to just under 70% in the last quarter of 2003.
	(8) 8Figures include a small number of interim replies relating to correspondence sent to HM Prison Service. 2003 performance figures also include 16,268 cases answered directly by the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Response times to these cases relate to drafting performance only. Figures based on final replies will be available for 2004. Immigration and Nationality Directorate response target was increased to 20 working days with effect from 1 April 2003 to account for the wide geographical spread of offices and the nature of the correspondence which is predominantly about specific cases rather than policy issues.
	(9) 9The CRB target was raised from 5 to 10 working days at the beginning of 2003 to reflect the standard set out in the CRB's Corporate Plan.
	(10) 1 0  Performance suffered due to the exceptionally high volume of correspondence following the introduction of the Working and Child Tax Credits in April 2003 and because, early in 2003–04, the Revenue's priority was to get claimants into payment. Since the processing of tax credits claims has been stable, the Revenue has restored normal complaints-handling procedures and increased the resources on its complaints teams. As a result, performance should begin to improve.
	(11) 1 1  DTI increased its response target from 10 to 15 working days with effect from 1 January in line with other main Whitehall departments.
	(12) 1 2  2003 data currently not available because of transfer to OFCOM.
	(13) 1 3  The Child Benefit Centre transferred to the Inland Revenue with effect from 1 April 2003. Figures quoted are for the period 1/1/03 to 31/3/03.